CALL 1-888-510-BABY or click on the picture on the left, if you gave birth or are about to and can't care for your baby, to give your baby to a worker at a nearby hospital (some states also include police stations or fire stations), NO QUESTIONS ASKED. YOU WON'T GET IN ANY TROUBLE or even have to tell your name; Safehaven people will help the baby be adopted and cared for.

Thursday, November 14, 2013

To Obama: "You Can't Get the Genie Back In The Bottle"

Subtitle:

A THIRD Lie, After The First and the Second Ones?

Obama did another press conference today, and uttered a repeat whopper:

"And -- and so what we want to do is to be able to say to these folks, you know what, the Affordable Care Act is not going to be the reason why insurers have to cancel your plan."

Oh, but it already is, and forever will be, the reason, even as he is forced today to now backtrack to "allow" people to "re-up" to those now-cancelled plans but--- only IF the insurers re-offer those plans, and--- ONLY then, for one year. And there's no guarantee their costs to re-up won't skyrocket right now!

Gee, thanks, Obama.

You've really made a huge, disgusting mess of millions of people's lives--even the liberal Daily Kos opined, "We are in 'Read my lips, no new taxes' territory"--and now all you can say is "I'm sorry" and "MAYBE you can have the plan back that I promised 24 times you could keep, but it'll cost you beaucoup bucks more," not to mention the sleepless nights, gray hairs and ulcers you've added to the daily lives of 5 million plus Americans?

And it's only going to get worse, again, next year (when individuals again will lose the plans they like if they got them back, and businesses also are forced by ObamaCare to change/jack-up the costs of their plans), and the year after that (or so, when the Cadillac tax on the better-providing plans kicks in).

He actually thinks anyone (outside of the West Wing, Wasserman, Reid/Pelosi, Salon.com, Huffington Post, Chris Matthews and Juan Williams) is BUYING any of this?

Anyone who doesn't have their heads in the sand knows the obvious: insurers were forced to drop their private plans because ObamaCare decreed they were "substandard" and had to go or be replaced with the higher-cost, higher-deductible, lose-your-doctor, "gold standard" required by ObamaCare!

As Don Henley once sang, "You Can't Get the Genie Back In The Bottle." People, once they know they've been duped and screwed, aren't going to forget those facts, and they're not going to blame it on the insurers like Obama hopes.

Does Obama really believe that any American with half a brain is buying this bold-faced, rehashed statement? Everyone knows the insurers wouldn't have had to do what they're doing if ObamaCare didn't force them to change!

Note in that video clip how Obama then goes on to trash those "bad-apple" insurers who, he contends, just out-of-the-blue, "may come back and say, we want to charge you 20 percent more than we did last year, or we're not going to cover prescription drugs now." Obama blames it on "the nature of the market that existed earlier," instead of on the fact that they've been incurring massive costs in ramping up to comply with this beast. With his "new fix", he gets to shift the blame wrongly to the insurance companies, saying, "They would have dropped your plans you like and charged you sooooo much more ANYWAY, even without ObamaCare, or, if they do it now, then it's THEIR fault, not ours."

Balderdash. Once again, he thinks he can get the genie back in the bottle.

It's an amazingly weak defense, and one he tried in early October which didn't work then. First of all, because they rammed the bill through before anyone had a chance to "find out what's in it", without a single Republican vote, we'll never know if the insurers would have jacked up people's private insurance rates and deductibles 100% or 200% anyway, like ObamaCare is forcing them to do now.

Remember, this is the ObamaCare individual mandate. Individuals, it is ObamaCare A.L.O.N.E. that made it mandatory by law that you get a plan that Obama has deemed acceptable. ObamaCare, then, defined your current plans (the ones you may have liked but have now lost) out of existence.

The BUSINESS mandate, which was miraculously extended from this year to 2014, will do the exact. same. thing to the plans the rest of us currently get from our employers, in almost all cases (possibly those large firms who self-insure will not be affected):

"The cancellations aren’t a bug, they’re a feature, and the president lied about it over and over again."

I don't want people to go without health insurance either, but allowing them to get competitive insurances ACROSS STATE LINES would have solved all the "bad-apple" insurance plans the Democrats say ObamaCare was designed to eliminate.

You and I and we all know that, if the shoe was on the other foot, the Democrats would let the Republican President and his ilk twist in the wind, watching with chortled glee and arms folded across their chests. I don't want to see any Republican doing the chortling, but neither are we obligated to help make a bad, destructive reform stick.

The only question now, for elected Democrats or liberal pundits with rabid media audiences they must keep in profound ignorance, is this: Do you go down with the sinking ship, or do you bail and try to work with those (e.g. Paul Ryan) who tried to work with you first toward a real, workable, successful healthcare reform plan in the first place, but who you all sniffed down your noses at and ignored?

It comes down to what's more important, ALL the American people, or your pride?

Did Harry Reid say they'd repeal ObamaCare "over my dead body", or did he just imply it? I understand he probably believes he's doing the best thing for Americans, but I'd bet there are close to 5 million right now who would vehemently disagree with him. And soon enough there will be 93 million of those. Or more.

I don't like the Republican Upton's bill--it has no teeth and thus no value to the people losing their plans. The results of Upton's bill would be the path of least resistance for insurers: to keep doing what they're doing, having already planned to comply with ObamaCare for the past three years, cancelling the existing "now-substandard" plans they've been cancelling.

Long-term? Once ObamaCare implodes, as it's looking likely to do? There are some plans that have long ago been proposed, it's just that the mainstream media which too many people rely on won't tell you about them:

"projected that a national insurance market would increase health coverage by 49 percent in New Jersey and 22 percent in New York. 'We find evidence of a significant opportunity to reduce the number of uninsured under a proposal to allow the purchase of insurance across state lines. The best scenario to reduce the uninsured, numerically, is competition among all 50 states with one clear winner. The most pragmatic scenario, with a good impact, is one winner in each regional market.'"

Realistically, it’s a power struggle. Insurance commissioners, like all bureaucrats, need to wield power in order to justify their position. Losing their total control over regulating the health insurance offered in their state means a loss of power. And like any other bureaucrat, they’ll fight that to their last breath.

Tell them to just step aside. They're standing in the way of people benefiting.

Congressional Republicans know what they want to do...This is a picture of broad agreement throughout the [Republican] caucus on numerous health policy issues – the only real disagreements are about how to achieve these goals, not what the goals are. But what’s notable about this approach is that unlike PPACA [aka ObamaCare], you don’t need the Rube Goldberg-like assemblage of a 2,700 page bill to do it. You can do this in fifty pages, as Rep. Paul Broun does (he also reforms EMTALA, too!), or you could break them up and pass them separately. You don’t have a situation where pulling one block out makes the rest collapse, as we’re seeing even now in the arguments over states passing on the Medicaid expansion. Journalists who say this more gradualist approach to reform means there is no plan betray their ignorance or their bias or both.

"After Abortion,...run by Emily Peterson and Annie Banno, two women who had abortions in the 1970s, ...tries to avoid the political tug-of-war that tends to come with this turf. They concentrate instead on discussing the troubling personal effects of abortion on the mothers." ~ Eric Scheske, Godspy contributing editor, in NC Register's "Signs of Life in the Blogosphere", 2/2006

"I would now like to say a special word to women who have had an abortion...[many are] aware of the many factors which may have influenced your decision, and [do] not doubt that it was a painful and even shattering decision. The wound in your heart may not yet have healed. Certainly what happened was and remains terribly wrong. But do not give in to discouragement and do not lose hope. Try rather to understand what happened and face it honestly. If you have not already done so, give yourselves over with humility and trust to repentance. The Father of mercies is ready to give you his forgiveness and his peace...You will come to understand that nothing is definitively lost and you will also be able to ask forgiveness from your child..."

Tongue-In-Cheek

Misc.

Syndicates

FREEDOM OF RELIGION, FREEDOM OF SPEECH, FREEDOM OF THE PRESS NOTICES: From its inception in 2005 forward, the postings on this site are the co-bloggers' own personal opinions, observations and research, do not reflect or represent the views of any employer(s), past, present or future, nor do/will they relate in any manner to said employer(s) or their businesses at any point in time. The writings expressed herein are protected expression by virtue of the First Amendment of the United States of America and by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in particular Articles 18 and 19, signed by the U.S.A. in 1948:

FAIR USE NOTICE:
This site may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of the physical, emotional, social and spiritual negative effects of abortion on women, men and families, and to provide resources for help and information to anyone experiencing these effects or trying to help those who are. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit.